VZCZCXRO7494
PP RUEHAG RUEHDF RUEHIK RUEHLZ RUEHROV
DE RUEHBS #1718/01 3151329
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 101329Z NOV 08
FM USEU BRUSSELS
TO RUCNMEM/EU MEMBER STATES COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY
INFO RUEHBS/AMEMBASSY BRUSSELS PRIORITY
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS PRIORITY
RUEAWJA/DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHDC PRIORITY
RHMFIUU/DEPT OF HOMELAND SECURITY WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 BRUSSELS 001718 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR INL, EUR, L/LEI, INL/PC, INL/AAE; 
JUSTICE FOR CRIMINAL DIVISION, OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL 
AFFAIRS; 
HOMELAND SECURITY FOR OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: KCRM PREL PTER EUN FR KJUS ECON KPAO KTIA
KHLS 
SUBJECT: DEMARCHE DELIVERED REGARDING U.S.-EU DATA 
PROTECTION ISSUE AND HLCG 
 
REF: SECSTATE 118592 (NOTAL) 
 
¶1. (SBU) Following instructions in Reftel, on November 7, 
2008, USEU Senior Justice Counsel spoke with Claire Rocheteau 
of the French Permanent Representation to the EU who serves 
as the chair of the EU side of the U.S.-EU High Level Contact 
Group (HLCG) experts.  The USEU representative raised the 
U.S. concern that the Presidency's planned presentation at 
the Committee of Permanent Representatives (COREPER II) 
meeting on November 12 of a proposed  EU- U.S. Ministerial 
Statement on data protection and law enforcement information 
sharing was premature as many points pending before the 
experts group had not yet been discussed.  Ms. Rocheteau was 
gracious when she learned of our concern and said that this 
presentation in COREPER was intended to inform Ambassadors, 
in a positive way, of the proposed next step and not to seek 
decisions on details.  She did, however, point to some basic 
differences the EU side had with the U.S. approach to this 
"political document." 
 
¶2. (SBU) In the conversation, USEU Justice Counsel explained 
that the U.S. side had become concerned when we learned that 
the proposal for an interim solution (pending negotiation of 
a final international agreement on data protections/privacy) 
of an EU - U.S. Ministerial Statement would be taken before 
COREPER II November 12.  The U.S. side feared that this was 
premature as many of the new points set out in the proposed 
drafts of the Statement had not yet been discussed by the 
HLCG experts.  We further feared if this were a decisional 
matter before COREPER that avenues possible later agreement 
might be closed off before any discussion had been initiated. 
 
¶3. (SBU) Ms. Rocheteau said she was appreciative of the 
contact relating our concern. Nevertheless the French 
Presidency (and EU Commission and Council representatives on 
the experts group) believed that the proposal for a 
Ministerial Statement needed to be presented before COREPER 
in order to get confirmation that would then allow the EU 
side to proceed.  Doing so, she said, would also give force 
to their work.  She conceded that it wold have been 
preferable first to have discussed the differences in our 
drafts but that the fast approaching deadline of the December 
Ministerial (shortened further, as she noted, by the long 
time taken by the U.S. side in proffering its counter-draft) 
forced them to move in a "reverse manner" at this juncture. 
She repeatedly underlined the French Presidency's intention 
that this presentation to COREPER would be as positive as 
possible because they "absolutely" wanted to proceed with 
this interim Ministerial Statement and with the HLCG experts' 
discussions. 
 
¶4. (SBU) Ms. Rocheteau said that there were similarities and 
some differences between items in the EU draft and the U.S. 
counter-draft of the Statement.  She noted that both the EU 
and the U.S. drafts had been distributed to COREPER on a 
"restreint" (no distribution) basis but that their COREPER 
presentation and discussion was not intended to go into 
details.  She made clear that the EU envisioned the proposed 
Ministerial Statement as a "political" statement and that it 
should not take the form of a "legal obligation" or be read 
to solve any differences between the two sides in a final way 
as one might infer from the U.S. draft text.  Their proposed 
departure point for the Ministerial Statement was the June 
2008 Final Report of the HLCG.  She said the presentation 
before COREPER would provide needed transparency to the HLCG 
process and would give the Presidency firm support against 
the constant challenges from the European Parliament and 27 
Member State parliaments. Some EU members had criticized a 
lack of transparency about the HLCG's work. 
 
¶5. (SBU) The USEU representative returned to the concern that 
COREPER might close off areas (or principles) that had not 
yet been discussed.  Ms. Rocheteau replied this was not their 
intention and that she would add a briefing point for her 
Ambassador that there should be no decision on any matters 
not yet discussed in full (by the HLCG experts). 
 
¶6. (SBU) COMMENT: Although the drafts are marked "restreint" 
(EU Confidential), HLCG-related internal documents have been 
leaked regularly to certain web sites in the past.  The 
interagency should prepare our posts in the 27 EU member 
 
BRUSSELS 00001718  002 OF 002 
 
 
states with talking points in the event that differences in 
the U.S. and EU negotiating positions become a public issue. 
END COMMENT. 
 
Silverberg 
.